← Databricks Interview Insights
This one took me a minute to even parse what they were asking.
First, clarify the encoding scheme: each path is encoded as a reference to a previous path plus a suffix, or as a standalone string. Sort the paths lexicographically to ensure shared prefixes are adjacent, then use dynamic programming where the state is the index of the current path and the length of the common prefix with the previous path. The DP recurrence decides whether to encode the current path as a suffix of the previous path (cost = suffix length + overhead) or as a new string (cost = full length + overhead), and we minimize the total cost.
Pro tip: Emphasize that sorting is crucial for optimality because it groups paths with long common prefixes, and mention that the DP state can be optimized to O(n * L) where L is the maximum path length, but in practice the prefix length is bounded by the previous path's length. Also, discuss trade-offs: adding a reference to a non-adjacent path might seem beneficial but sorting guarantees that the best reference is always the immediate predecessor.
Define what constitutes an encoding: typically, a path can be encoded as a reference to a previous path (e.g., 'previous path + suffix') or as a literal string. Assume each encoding has a fixed overhead for the reference and a cost proportional to the suffix length. Ask if the reference can be to any previous path or only the immediately preceding one; if any, sorting still helps but DP may need to consider all previous paths.
Sorting ensures that paths sharing long prefixes are adjacent, which maximizes the benefit of referencing the previous path. This is a key insight: the optimal reference for a path is always its immediate predecessor in sorted order, because any other path would share a shorter or equal prefix.
Let dp[i][p] be the minimum total encoded length for the first i paths, where p is the length of the common prefix between path i and path i-1 (or 0 if i=0). For path i, we can either encode it as a new string (cost = len(path_i) + overhead) or as a reference to path i-1 with suffix starting at p (cost = (len(path_i) - p) + overhead_ref). The transition from dp[i-1][p_prev] to dp[i][p] depends on the common prefix length between path i-1 and path i, which is fixed after sorting. Actually, a simpler state: dp[i] = min total cost for first i paths, and we consider the cost of encoding path i given that we reference path i-1 or not. But to account for the prefix length, we can precompute LCP[i] = longest common prefix of path i and path i-1. Then dp[i] = min(dp[i-1] + len(path_i) + overhead, dp[i-1] + (len(path_i) - LCP[i]) + overhead_ref). However, this assumes we always reference the immediate predecessor if beneficial, but we might skip referencing to allow a longer prefix later? Actually, referencing does not affect future paths because the reference is only to the previous path. So the decision for each path is independent given the previous path. Thus, a simple greedy might work? But wait: if we encode path i as a reference to path i-1, the encoded string for path i is not the full path, so path i+1 cannot reference path i's full path unless we store the full path separately. Typically, the encoding scheme assumes that references are to the original paths, not to the encoded ones. So the DP state should be: dp[i] = min cost for first i paths, and we consider whether to encode path i as a reference to path i-1 or as a new string. But if we reference path i-1, we still need to know the full path i-1 to compute the suffix? Actually, the suffix is computed from the original path i-1, which is known. So the decision for path i does not depend on how path i-1 was encoded. Therefore, the problem reduces to: for each i, choose min(len(path_i) + overhead, len(path_i) - LCP[i] + overhead_ref). But this is too simple and ignores the possibility of referencing a path further back. However, if we can reference any previous path, then we need to consider all j < i. But sorting ensures that the best j is i-1. So the DP is indeed simple. But the question asks to 'define the DP state precisely over sorted paths and prefix length', implying a more complex state. Perhaps the encoding scheme allows a path to be encoded as a reference to any previous path, and the cost is the length of the suffix after the common prefix. Then the optimal reference for path i is the one that maximizes the common prefix, which is path i-1 after sorting. So again, simple. Maybe the DP state is over the prefix length because we might choose to encode a path as a reference to a path that is not the immediate predecessor if we skip some paths? But skipping doesn't help because the immediate predecessor has the longest common prefix. So I think the DP state is simply dp[i] = min cost for first i paths, and the recurrence is as above. However, to be safe, we can define dp[i][p] where p is the length of the common prefix used for the reference to path i-1, but p is determined by LCP[i]. So it's not a free variable. The question might expect a DP that considers all possible prefix lengths, but that would be overkill. I'll stick with the simple DP and explain that the state is over the index and the prefix length is implicit from the LCP.
Sorting takes O(n log n * L) where L is the average path length (or O(n log n) comparisons, each O(L)). Computing LCP for adjacent paths takes O(n * L). The DP takes O(n) time and O(1) space if we only keep the previous cost, or O(n) space if we store all. So overall O(n log n * L) time and O(n * L) space for storing the paths, or O(1) extra space for DP.
Mention that the overhead constants matter: if overhead_ref is large, it might be better to encode as new string even if there is a common prefix. Also, consider the case where paths are identical: then suffix length is 0, so cost is just overhead_ref. Edge cases: empty list, single path, paths with no common prefixes. Also, discuss whether the encoding scheme allows referencing a path that itself was encoded as a reference (i.e., transitive references) — typically not, to avoid complexity.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.